You sum your post up as follows:
We don’t know. So let’s neutralize him and find out. And that is what the law is for.
We don't know, so let's dump on a citizen with the full force of the law? Make him prove his innocence? REALLY???
Not here. Not in America. Take your government tyranny and shove it.
The law is for punishing criminals, not harassing the law-abiding.
What you say is true and used to be. However , this is now and that was then. Once we were governed, now we are ruled. A free people cannot be ruled,but they can be governed. Our Founding Fathers understood that. They served in government [Congress or lesser offices]for a while and returned to their farms and businesses. They were Citizen Politicians. Then came the Professional Politicians. Their sole ambition was to rule others, using the power of the Government as their club. The Citizens became less willing to solve their problems, turning and looking instead to the Government for solutions. Those in Government immediately complied and begun enacting laws solve those problems. So, here we are.
My, aren’t we getting personal. If you want to be a cop and approach a house with a guy in it that has been in question as to his mental or personal capacity to use a weapon, you just jump in there.
You don’t know anything about me to call my thoughts tyranny. I went through huts in ‘Nam in the late sixties, and through many different types of dwellings in Iraq and the surrounding area in the eighties, and all others in between. And we went through with weapons ready. I’ve done that and did for them for 32 years.
“We don’t know, so let’s dump on a citizen with the full force of the law?
Did you read the article? His weapon fired first and caused one of the police officers to open up. The article doesn’t say if he still had possession of the gun or what his status was at the time he was shot by the other officer. So no, we don’t know. We only know he drew a weapon on two police officers trying to full fill a court order by removing his immediate capacity to harm himself or someone else until the accusations can be proven false.
And it was not being done in a forceful action as they have done many prior servings to this without any force. It was not an arrest, and they were not going to detain him. He changed the rules when he got his gun and caused a round to be chambered and discharged. And I would say this supports the decision by the court that he may be dangerous with a weapon available.
“Make him prove his innocence? REALLY???”
Isn’t that what happens in any case in our courts? It appears there is a question as to his safety placed there not by law enforcement, but by relatives or health professionals. And there was enough evidence to take an action to protect him and others.
And how many people have to get killed if that action can’t be taken to prevent something from happening to himself or against innocent people with a guy that for no reason other than a foolish act or thought process decided to use a weapon rather than take care of it peacefully.
“The law is for punishing criminals, not harassing the law-abiding.”
The law by the definition of Black’s Law Dictionary, the most used law book in the US, is: 1. that which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomena or actions coexist or follow each other. 2. A system of principles and rules of human conduct, being the aggregate of those commandments and principles which are either prescribed or recognized by the gov- erning power in an organized jural society as its will in relation to the conduct of the members of such society, and which it undertakes to maintain and sanction and to use as the criteria of the actions of such members. “Law” is a solemn expression of legislative will. It orders and permits and forbids. It announces rewards and punishments. Its provisions generally relate not to solitary or singular cases, but to what passes in the ordinary course of affairs. 3. A rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power in a, state.
There is nothing in there that determines the guilt or innocence of a person. So the only act of the court was to protect. And this guy apparently needed it and chose to ignore the possibilities.
And in the future, if you want to have a discussion with people, it might be wise to stick to facts and not your unproven or legally shared opinion. And calling me a name like treasonous falls right into that situation. You lose the credibility of your discussion and you create a desire not to further discuss any issue with you. Have a good life.
rwood